ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's a 'repeater'?

My guess are the Aug - Dec birthdays that will have to repeat whatever year they are in now.

So a 2011 current player is playing against 2012's next season if this passes?

How does that help the kid?

If the 2011 is born between Aug and Dec, then yeah, the will be playing with and against kids born between Jan and July of 2012. That’s the entire gist of going to school year because most* kids in that range are in the same grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spoke to a director about the upcoming change. He said the "repeaters" were going to cause mass chaos, especially in the younger ranks where he'd expect so many repeaters he wondered how many slots he'd have for new players.

Wow, people really do fear change and I hate to say it but your director isn't very smart or doesn't want to work or both.

1st, Aug-Dec players going down an age category below them will replace Aug-Dec that are leaving that age group and going down an age group. It will be uneven so some kids will have to be promoted or demoted to even things out. As usual as kids leave they will need to be replaced and if too many new kids come in, kids will have to be demoted. And as usual, kids will have to be promoted or brought in from the outside when the teams go from 7v7 to 9v9 and 9v9 to 11v11.

2nd, it is hoped that at the younger age groups more kids will want to play, this is a feature not a bug. Clubs will make an extra young team and make more money. "Problem" solved.

Clubs in the past have feigned internal tryouts that matter to decide next year's clubs and this year they will actually have to follow through. That's not chaos, that's doing your job and doing right by kids.

Calling kids being reassigned to a different age categories as repeaters is childish and stupid, essentially insinuating that the are repeating a grade or something. I get when the directors hate the parents but hating on the kids means they should leave youth soccer to better people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Set 9/1 to avoid the reverse trap.

Players who need to play down after the 9/1 cut-off are currently trapped as well.

I believe ECNL will give those players waiver to be able to play down in their grade during ECNL showcase.

1. After setting the cut off to be 9/1, only a very small number of players born before 9/1, but choose to go to school late will be impacted. Those players are currently trapped as well. ECNL can give them waivers to play down in the showcase.

2. For another very small number of players after 9/1, but choose to go to school early, play up is the option if they want to stay in their grade and can play as the youngest in the older group.

No new solution can be perfect to everyone. But set to 9/1 will significantly reduce the # of current trapped players.

They discussed going back to Aug, not a new date. So they are voting on reverting back to Aug 1-July 31.

See https://www.usyouthsoccer.org/news/2024/10/23/us-youth-soccer-us-club-soccer-ayso-statement-on-forthcoming-u-s-soccer-decision-on-calendar-year-vs-birth-year-registration/.

Posters wanting 9-1 and arguing for is irrelevant. This is still US Soccer.

Sorry but there is nothing in the public announcement that suggests they are simply going to vote to "repeal" the birth year decision and revert back to the previous system. It also doesn't state that if they do vote for a return to school year based age groups that either the school year dates nor when this change would be implemented will be decided at this particular meeting. That could all be determined down the road. Unless you have the agenda (not yet published on the website), you are also engaging in pure speculation.

They are reviewing the decision that took them from 8-1 to 1-1. Speculation would be saying 9-1 is 70% going to happen. To suggest 9-1 is anything but a speculation would be a farce.

Again, incorrect. The US Soccer statement declares that they are "reviewing the impact on our sport, specifically for players of all ages and competitive levels, and comparing the practical results to the communicated goals and outcomes.". You are simply seeing words that aren't written and fomenting statements in your mind that don't exist in real life. Stop reading between the lines and telling us your "opinion" on what is being discussed." You only have a few more days and you will find out the facts.

Seriously, how are you missing this?

"In 2017, U.S. Soccer decided to change the age eligibility for team rosters from August 1-July 31 to January 1-December 31."

"Over the past few months, U.S. Soccer, at the urgence of its Technical Development Committee, has engaged in a review of that decision."

Just 2 more days of this nonsense.

If English is your primary language that I'll assume you understand the difference between "review of the decision" and "reversal of the decision.". If it is not then carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Set 9/1 to avoid the reverse trap.

Players who need to play down after the 9/1 cut-off are currently trapped as well.

I believe ECNL will give those players waiver to be able to play down in their grade during ECNL showcase.

1. After setting the cut off to be 9/1, only a very small number of players born before 9/1, but choose to go to school late will be impacted. Those players are currently trapped as well. ECNL can give them waivers to play down in the showcase.

2. For another very small number of players after 9/1, but choose to go to school early, play up is the option if they want to stay in their grade and can play as the youngest in the older group.

No new solution can be perfect to everyone. But set to 9/1 will significantly reduce the # of current trapped players.

They discussed going back to Aug, not a new date. So they are voting on reverting back to Aug 1-July 31.

See https://www.usyouthsoccer.org/news/2024/10/23/us-youth-soccer-us-club-soccer-ayso-statement-on-forthcoming-u-s-soccer-decision-on-calendar-year-vs-birth-year-registration/.

Posters wanting 9-1 and arguing for is irrelevant. This is still US Soccer.

Sorry but there is nothing in the public announcement that suggests they are simply going to vote to "repeal" the birth year decision and revert back to the previous system. It also doesn't state that if they do vote for a return to school year based age groups that either the school year dates nor when this change would be implemented will be decided at this particular meeting. That could all be determined down the road. Unless you have the agenda (not yet published on the website), you are also engaging in pure speculation.

They are reviewing the decision that took them from 8-1 to 1-1. Speculation would be saying 9-1 is 70% going to happen. To suggest 9-1 is anything but a speculation would be a farce.

Again, incorrect. The US Soccer statement declares that they are "reviewing the impact on our sport, specifically for players of all ages and competitive levels, and comparing the practical results to the communicated goals and outcomes.". You are simply seeing words that aren't written and fomenting statements in your mind that don't exist in real life. Stop reading between the lines and telling us your "opinion" on what is being discussed." You only have a few more days and you will find out the facts.

Seriously, how are you missing this?

"In 2017, U.S. Soccer decided to change the age eligibility for team rosters from August 1-July 31 to January 1-December 31."

"Over the past few months, U.S. Soccer, at the urgence of its Technical Development Committee, has engaged in a review of that decision."

Just 2 more days of this nonsense.

If English is your primary language that I'll assume you understand the difference between "review of the decision" and "reversal of the decision.". If it is not then carry on.

Solid catch. I totally missed where they said they were considering random waivers and dates suggested by DCUM folks. Still don't know why DCUM invented scenarios are thought to be part of the real US Soccer vote. 9-1 was part of a feedback survey done well after decisions were made so soccer can say they got feedback.. and cared...cared a lot...with empathy and everything. They could pick Aug 17 at 10am for the cutoff. You heard it here first. One more day of this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Yeah I think a lot the fear and complaining from DOCs is a sign you're not a very good club.

Rotating the rosters, moving kids up and down, finding spots for new kids, thinking about how to make both the best teams and the best opportunities for kids, thats the job. Overall the number of kids in the club doesn't change really, except for new kids who might play soccer for the first time which is the goal!

Every little thing is gonna be alright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's a 'repeater'?

My guess are the Aug - Dec birthdays that will have to repeat whatever year they are in now.

So a 2011 current player is playing against 2012's next season if this passes?

How does that help the kid?

And some 2012's will play against 2013's. They're just wanting to push the age group dates which will always have some effect negative or positive, same as the current system.

Outside of that and recruiting, it HAS to be the angle of money somehow, just haven't figured out why.

I mean, they are broadcasting it, increased participation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's a 'repeater'?

My guess are the Aug - Dec birthdays that will have to repeat whatever year they are in now.

So a 2011 current player is playing against 2012's next season if this passes?

How does that help the kid?

And some 2012's will play against 2013's. They're just wanting to push the age group dates which will always have some effect negative or positive, same as the current system.

Outside of that and recruiting, it HAS to be the angle of money somehow, just haven't figured out why.

I mean, they are broadcasting it, increased participation.

True, but some people refuse to believe it affects participation.

[Anonymous]

They should provide waivers for kids who are being moved down due to late birthday that is causing them to play a grade down. The waiver would allow them to stay with their grad year as a younger player - essentially as it stands now. Forcing them to repeat 8th grade ECNL year while being in 9th grade doesn't make sense and screws up recruiting for them. It's like a reverse trap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's a 'repeater'?

My guess are the Aug - Dec birthdays that will have to repeat whatever year they are in now.

Correct, a "repeater" would be a kid who stays in the same U-# (e.g., U14) for the 2025-26 season as he was in for the 2024-25 season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's a 'repeater'?

My guess are the Aug - Dec birthdays that will have to repeat whatever year they are in now.

So a 2011 current player is playing against 2012's next season if this passes?

How does that help the kid?

And some 2012's will play against 2013's. They're just wanting to push the age group dates which will always have some effect negative or positive, same as the current system.

Outside of that and recruiting, it HAS to be the angle of money somehow, just haven't figured out why.

I mean, they are broadcasting it, increased participation.

True, but some people refuse to believe it affects participation.

I'm on that wagon. Marginal effect, nothing major. A lot of these kids are only friends through the club, not often have I seen it be a thing where it's a deciding factor for a child to choose to play club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's a 'repeater'?

My guess are the Aug - Dec birthdays that will have to repeat whatever year they are in now.

So a 2011 current player is playing against 2012's next season if this passes?

How does that help the kid?

And some 2012's will play against 2013's. They're just wanting to push the age group dates which will always have some effect negative or positive, same as the current system.

Outside of that and recruiting, it HAS to be the angle of money somehow, just haven't figured out why.

I mean, they are broadcasting it, increased participation.

True, but some people refuse to believe it affects participation.

I'm on that wagon. Marginal effect, nothing major. A lot of these kids are only friends through the club, not often have I seen it be a thing where it's a deciding factor for a child to choose to play club.

I believe the argument starts before club - if kids in the rec and academy age dropout because they can't play with their grade/friends, then they will not even make it to the club level.

[Anonymous]

I could see it helping recreationally, but there's no guarantees you will be on the same team as your classmates in club and it helping add customers to the big ticket of club soccer. Then add in that it's become even more difficult to reach collegiate play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should provide waivers for kids who are being moved down due to late birthday that is causing them to play a grade down. The waiver would allow them to stay with their grad year as a younger player - essentially as it stands now. Forcing them to repeat 8th grade ECNL year while being in 9th grade doesn't make sense and screws up recruiting for them. It's like a reverse trap.

No waiver needed, players can play up. Might have to go from say ECNL to ECRL though depending on talent level of child and club a year up.

[Anonymous]

People are claiming their kid cant play up but thats never true... It might not be at the same level but any kid can play up.

might be 2012 A then 2011 D

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's a 'repeater'?

My guess are the Aug - Dec birthdays that will have to repeat whatever year they are in now.

So a 2011 current player is playing against 2012's next season if this passes?

How does that help the kid?

Don't you see that dynamic in their middle school team?